I would imagine the FSM to be composed of the platonic ideal of gluten rather than physical gluten, though I’m not sure if that would be more irritating or less. I’d consult a GI and maybe a metaphysician.

Notice the top comment compared belief in god specifically to flat earth theory, hence the structure of my response.

As to your hypothesis, I didn’t ask about brain activity, I asked about consciousness itself, the subjective experience. It’s still very much an open question.

Latin has more rules, but they’re more utilitarian than fancy. Latin rules are there to make sure you understand exactly what is being said. French rules are there to make everything elegant and confusing, like high fashion.

I just have some high school Latin from long ago, but if you parse “fancy” as “ornamental at the expense of utility”, then I think it’s a fair description.

Biden didn’t drop out because some online leftists refused to vote for him, he dropped out because big donors that back the Democrats wanted him to.

That sort of limited trading does happen for some very niche products that don’t have a lot of potential buyers and sellers.

It’s actually way more common than you’d think. Trading is frequently internalized in order to maximize arbitration profits.

Fish women want me. Fear me.

It’s a footpath, not a wheel path. Better to set your expectations at the start than find an impassable obstacle halfway through.

I think brainstorming is specifically a group activity. When you do it alone, it’s just called “thinking”. The point of brainstorming is to bring in ideas you thought of individually to co-mingle with the ideas other people thought of individually.

More than 50% of the people.

Substantially less than 100%. The terms are not synonymous.

they certainly do provide insight into the language used in the constitution, as well as the intent of the authors.

Some of the authors. If it was sufficiently representative, it would have made it into the Constitution itself.

If Congress chooses to discuss a term used in the constitution, their usage does not alter the constitutional meaning, but only establishes a legislative meaning.

This still does not establish the constitutional meaning. You have notably not provided sufficient evidence to establish a constitutional meaning.

the states accepted and enacted the constitution in the context of the papers.

Correct. The states accepted and ratified the Constitution, not the Federalist Papers.

and have no problem whatsoever considering the disciplined portion to be unambiguously a part of the Militia.

That portion being the “whole nation”.

The “whole nation” is not disciplined. I was quite specific: if, and only if, the “whole nation” is disciplined, it is appropriate to consider the “whole nation” to be synonymous with the Militia.

What if I argue that Congress found a different way to ensure the population was “properly armed and equipped” that didn’t require annual assembly?

“Properly” being the functional term here. “Armed and equipped” is not the same as “Properly armed and equipped”.

If you don’t like being held to pedantry, don’t make flippant categorical equivalences of precise legal language.

10 USC 246 does not cover males under 17 or over 45, these are part of the People who are not legislative Militia. Hypotheticals are not evidence.

The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. If you draw a distinction between the constitutional and legislative, I’ll draw a further distinction against commentary.

I am a proponent of disciplining the whole nation, and have no problem whatsoever considering the disciplined portion to be unambiguously a part of the Militia. If Congress does indeed reinstate assembly to properly arm and equip every member of the People, I will promptly concede. But hypotheticals are not evidence.

the constitutional meaning does not exclude anyone

Buddy, you keep just saying that like it’s some b ontological fact. I’ve repeatedly asked you for evidence to support that and you keep shifting focus to avoid doing so.

Until you can provide concrete, tangible evidence to support that interpretation, I’m not interested in hearing anything else. Show me documentation, not just your own assertions. No more dancing.

But not with what you said, and not with what you’re currently saying.

Personally, I disagree with the definition in 10 USC 246; I believe the “unorganized militia” should still imply training, even though the members may not presently be active members of the National Guard. The right to bear arms should fall under the same kind of regulation as operating a vehicle: subject to training and demonstration of competence. But it is what it is.

But this is all secondary to the core issue of the claim that Militia = People, constitutionally speaking. Again, rectangles and squares. So long as the definition of one excludes some members of the other, no matter how large the subset, they are not synonymous. The specific vocabulary is crucial to legal interpretation, and the central point of my contention.

No, this entire argument is based upon the fact that you claimed, and continued to claim, without evidence that Militia and People are constitutionally synonyms. And here again you dance around that nonsense claim, trying to refocus on anything else because, I’ve again, you have absolutely no evidence to support this.

You convincing yourself of this nonsense is not evidence. Your personal interpretations mean exactly nothing to me.

Dance dance dance. This was no debate, this was a rich demonstration of your ability to deviate, distract, and entirely miss the point. And you still can’t present a shred of evidence. Clownshow.

The constitutional meaning of “militia” is very, very broad. The constitutional meaning of “militia” is so broad that it is effectively synonymous with “the people”.

A totally unsubstantiated claim which you have made multiple times with zero evidence.

Dance for someone else, it’s not even entertaining anymore.

And your interpretation continues to imply that everyone who isn’t a male between 17 and 45, or a female in the National Guard, is not People. You keep dancing around with your definition of Militia while conveniently ignoring that your claim was that Militia = People and the words are interchangeable. That is my sole contention.

You can either concede that your claim was wrong, or you can affirm that you believe that men 17-45 and women in the National Guard are the only citizens who count as People. There is no alternative.

You invented the “trained” qualification. Pulled it straight out of thin air

I pulled it straight out of the dictionary, where the word “Militia” is defined.

Now, if you will accept a minor change from “trained” to “trainable”, your definition expands to include both classes of the militia as defined in 10USC246, and becomes reasonably close to the constitutional meanings of both “militia” and “the people”.

You’re pulling this straight out of thin air, so I flat out reject it.

This is going nowhere. If the words were synonymous, they wouldn’t have bothered to use the word Militia. Full stop. I’m not going to continue to entertain your fantasies of what the drafters really meant, inventing your own definitions of words that have literal written definitions.

Again, your line of reasoning ignores the “trained” aspect of a Militia, and implies that everyone who isn’t subject to conscription isn’t People.

If you want to suggest that the state-based National Guard should train all adults in “military exercise”, including the responsible operation of firearms, you’ll hear nothing but support from me. I believe that everyone, leading into adulthood, should receive training roughly in line with the concept of JROTC. I believe this, or comparable training, should engage nicely with the 2nd Amendment.

I do not believe that every unhinged yahoo having access to firearms is desirable. Driver’s Ed is actually a great parallel. If you cannot demonstrate that you are capable of responsibly operating a vehicle, you are not permitted to do so, at least not in public spaces. If you cannot demonstrate that you are capable of responsibly wielding a firearm, you should not be permitted to do so, at least not in public spaces.

If your objection, as tends to be the case, is “Then the government will feel too comfortable limiting the check popular firearm ownership places on despotism!”, this isn’t the 18th century. The standing Army can easily overwhelm any grassroots opposition.

If your objection is something else not addressed, I will be happy to respectfully consider and engage with it.

young men cannot get or renew a driver’s license or financial aid for college. They can even be charged with a crime, all for failing to follow one of the very few regulations imposed upon the militia.

This interpretation is inconsistent for a couple reasons. First, selective service is for the Army, a federal institution; Militias are directed at the state level, so it’s not really appropriate to conflate selective service with a Militia. This might be a rational argument if selective service was for the National Guard.

Further, if Militia and People are synonymous as you suggest, you’re implying that everyone who isn’t registered (women, children, men over the age of 25) aren’t People.

How can they be punished for not fulfilling their militia duty if they are not militia?

Again, Army ≠ Militia. The Selective Service Act is for conscription into the standing Army, which is a constitutionally distinct entity. Additionally, selective service didn’t exist until 1917.

I started by asking “who is the militia?”, nothing more. The legislature told me who they thought was the militia (every able bodied male citizen aged 17 to 45) and I asked why women weren’t included. Then I realized the definition the legislature used was not the definition used in the Constitution, and I allowed it to expand to as broad a concept as Congress would have access to: everyone.

Yes, once again I repeat that you are deciding what conclusion you want to reach, and then selecting definitions and justifications that support your conclusions, because the established definitions don’t. This is extremely poor logical form.

Your interpretation of “no training, no militia” is not unreasonable as a practical matter, but we are talking about constitutional law, constitutional rights. If there are any rights attached to the concept of “militia”, liberty demands we assume the broadest reasonable interpretation; if there are any infringements attached to the militia, the narrowest definition possible.

This doesn’t make rational sense. The definition is what it is, and the rights and infringements thereon lay where they lay. Picking and choosing to minimize responsibilities and maximize benefits to suit your personal disposition is an abomination to legal consistency.

I defer to Johnson’s Dictionary when nitpicking definitions of words used by the founders, as it was literally the definitive authority at the time. Militia is defined as “The trainbands; the standing force of a nation”, and since ‘trainbands’ is an archaic term, I’ll include that it is defined as “The militia; the part of a community trained to martial exercise”. Eliminating that little loop, we arrive at the accepted definition of Militia at the ratification of the Constitution: the standing force of a nation; the part of a community trained to martial exercise.

‘People’ is simply defined as “A nation; these who compose a community”. The Militia is a part of that community, specifically the part which is trained to martial exercise. The Constitution underwent many revisions, poring over every word. When they meant People, they wrote People; if they wrote Militia, they damn well meant exactly “Militia”, as literally defined. Any other interpretation is willfully disingenuous.

“Well regulated militia” is not the “gotcha” that hoplophobes think it is.

It’s a prefatory clause, intended to communicate vital information. If the information included in that clause was not important to the interpretation of the text, it would have been excised during revision. No other amendment justifies itself that way, despite the fact that they all have justifications. The only honest conclusion is that the founders intended that clause to be Included for a material purpose.

Claiming that this one clause in the entire document was included for no real reason and can be safely disregarded is, again, willfully disingenuous and an abomination against our most sacred foundations.